Pyrocat-HD, 400Tmax, Jobo

[sanking]

as an avid proponent of his own formula his results will be more suspect than he accuses mine of being for PMK which I did not create and do not sell either the book or the chemicals. It will be like a drug company reporting the results of their own study on their own product. The scientific community would never respect any such findings.

steve simmons

First of all, we are involved in a study of pyro versus non-staining formulas for the purpose of answering some questions that many people have about these developers. I would never think of doing anything as stupid, suspect and self-serving as to make a direct comparision of Pyrocat-HD with PMK, or with any other developer, staining or otherwise, for that matter. Pyro developers offer some real advantages, IMHO, but there are also a number of myths out there about them that I hope to addreess with facts.

Second, in situations where there are subjective evaluations that have to be made, as with print sharpness and grain, for example, we will be using an outside evaluator to evaluate print sharpness and grain and the chips will fall where they fall.

Third, I am confident our study will have credibility in the community because the methodology will be transparent, so that anyone who wants to repeat the tests can do so and reach his/her own conclusions about the merits of our findings. That, I believe, is how things are done in the scientific community and in respected journals.

As for the comparison of Pyrocat-HD and PMK that you published two years ago in the July/August issue of View Camera, entitled PMK vs. Pyrocat HD: What Are the Differences and Do They Matter for the Silver Print?, I previously determined to have nothing more to say about it.

Sandy King

[steve simmons]

The upcoming article on staining developers in View Camera (Sept/Oct 06) will do a lot of this already. The difference is that with our article you were not in control but an independent editor was (that is why you initially refused to participate because you wanted control over who would be included).

steve

[sanking]

The upcoming article on staining developers in View Camera (Sept/Oct 06) will do a lot of this already. The difference is that with our article you were not in control but an independent editor was (that is why you initially refused to participate because you wanted control over who would be included).

steve

In my experience communications of a professional nature between the editor of a magazine and a person who has been asked to contribute to the magazine should be confidential in nature. Why I chose to initially decline to participate in the article, and subsequently changed my mind, was in my estimation a matter between you and me, and not one for you to share with the public. I certainly did not consider the issue to be public, and am shocked that you thought it appropriate to mention anything about it on this forum.

Sandy King

[steve simmons]

It became relevant because your study is being touted as monumental. You are in control which invalidates any findings as being objective. This is the same thing that happened with the View Camera article. You wanted to be in control and not allow everyone to participate. This does not bode well for any subsequent study you do.

steve

[Michael Kadillak]

It became relevant because your study is being touted as monumental. You are in control which invalidates any findings as being objective. This is the same thing that happened with the View Camera article. You wanted to be in control and not allow everyone to participate. This does not bode well for any subsequent study you do.

steve

Given Sandy's solid academic background and his utilization of blind third party judges relative to potentially biased interpretative components I am elated that this subject is finally being studied.

BUT at the end of the day I feel that I and many LF participants around the globe have the intellectual capacity of accepting or rejecting all or any components of Sandy's study or anything that View Camera produces or concludes at our personal descretion.

Cheers!

[sanking]

It became relevant because your study is being touted as monumental. You are in control which invalidates any findings as being objective. This is the same thing that happened with the View Camera article. You wanted to be in control and not allow everyone to participate. This does not bode well for any subsequent study you do.

steve

As previously stated, I believe it is highly unprofessional for the editor of a magazine to be engaged in this type of exchange, and I have no further comment.

Sandy

[sanking]

Given Sandy's solid academic background and his utilization of blind third party judges relative to potentially biased interpretative components I am elated that this subject is finally being studied.

BUT at the end of the day I feel that I and many LF participants around the globe have the intellectual capacity of accepting or rejecting all or any components of Sandy's study or anything that View Camera produces or concludes at our personal descretion.

Cheers!

Michael,

I must say that more is perhaps expected than I for one feel capable of producing. The issues, though they appear simple on the face of it, are really quite complicated and difficult to test.

However, whether the study is useful or not there will be a methodology described that others can follow if they disagree with the conclusions.

Sandy

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael,

I must say that more is perhaps expected than I for one feel capable of producing. The issues, though they appear simple on the face of it, are really quite complicated and difficult to test.

However, whether the study is useful or not there will be a methodology described that others can follow if they disagree with the conclusions.

Sandy

Fair enough.